PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

REYDANTE CALONZO
G.R. Nos. 115150-55. September 27, 1996

FACTS:
REYDANTE CALONZO was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and five (5) counts of Estafa.
The prosecution presented the complainants claiming that Calonzo informs them that he could provide them
employment abroad, particularly, for a fee.
He required the complainants to provide money for processing their papers but the promise of work abroad did
not materialize.
They verified from the POEA whether Calonzo or his R. A. C. Business Agency was duly authorized and licensed
to recruit people for employment abroad. The POEA certified that R. A. C. Business Agency was not licensed to
recruit workers for overseas employment.
Reydante Calonzo tells his own story admitting being engaged in the consultancy business through his R. A. C.
Business Agency but denies any involvement in recruitment activities.
He denies knowing the complaining witnesses except Danilo de los Reyes and Belarmino Torregrosa who once
visited him in his office.
While he disclaims the receipts presented by the prosecution as official receipts of his R. A. C. Business Agency,
he admits that the signatures thereon were similar to his.

ISSUE: WON Calonzo is guilty of both illegal recruitment and estafa.

HELD: YES.
AS TO ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT:
Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person "(a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined
under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license
or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or
more persons, individually or as a group."
The testimony of complainants evidently showed that Calonzo was engaged in recruitment activities in large
scale. Firstly, he deluded complainants into believing that jobs awaited them in Italy by distinctly impressing upon them
that he had the facility to send them for work abroad. He even showed them his passport to lend credence to his claim.
To top it all, he brought them to Bangkok and not to Italy. Neither did he have any arrangements in Bangkok for the
transfer of his recruits to Italy.
Secondly, POEA likewise certified that neither Calonzo nor R. A. C. Business Agency was licensed to recruit
workers for employment abroad. Appellant admitted this fact himself.
Thirdly, appellant recruited five (5) workers thus making the crime illegal recruitment in large scale constituting
economic sabotage.
All the complaining witnesses testified that they gave their money to Calonzo through Loreta Castaeda who in
turn gave the amounts to Calonzo in their presence through receipts issued by the R. A. C. Business Agency with
Calonzo's signature affixed thereon.
Nobody corroborated Calonzo's denial. Even Loreta who could have confirmed such denial testified that all the amounts
given by the complainants were turned over by her to Calonzo.

AS TO ESTAFA: The SC ruled that while illegal recruitment has been committed if some other crimes or
felonies are committed in the process, conviction under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment under other
statutes.

The elements of estafa were: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of
deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.
In the case before us, we are convinced that Calonzo defrauded complainants through deceit. They were obviously misled
into believing that he could provide them employment in Italy. As a result, the five (5) complainants who desperately
wanted to augment their income and improve their lot parted with their hard-earned money.

In the case before us, we are convinced that Calonzo defrauded complainants through deceit. They were
obviously misled into believing that he could provide them employment in Italy. As a result, the five (5) complainants who
desperately wanted to augment their income and improve their lot parted with their hard-earned money.